Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts

[der Mouse <]

[Pulling together three messages here, because their replies fit well
into a single message.]

> Anyway this process is intended to put a stop to the kind of nonsense
> we now encounter with spam-enablers like this:

>  was unable to deliver to the intended recipient(s):

>  postmaster "(2), ErrMsg=mail box space not enough, account=postmaster "

> in which case you get a bounce that there is a mailbox but it is not
> operational due to negligence by the miscreant RIR registrant.  Such
> people would have their IP address space withdrawn until they can
> behave like responsible adults.

This is a nice theory.  But...

> Mandating your suggestion would surely create a 100% correct
> database.  But it would piss off all RIPE members to the extent that
> the co-operative nature upon which RIPE is based would be irrevocably
> destroyed.

...this is very probably true.  I fear it may have to be imposed from
above rather than from below.

> Why would anyone be annoyed by being asked to behave responsibly?

The spam-supporters will be annoyed because it means they can't get
away with hiding any longer.  The non-spam-supporters will be annoyed
because it's more trouble for them; in addition, every time a
legitimate mistake happens and has unfortunate consequences, the rules
will acquire another enemy.  (For example, take that postmaster mailbox
full error above.  That could easily be a legitimate ISP who's just
acquired a spammer customer - perhaps even one they've larted already -
but is having trouble keeping up with the flood of complaints landing
in their postmaster mailbox.  Or perhaps their postmaster address got
joe-jobbed; I got joed back in October 2001 and was completely off the
air for two days as one of the consequences.

> No one objects to having to provide correct contact data for a
> driver's license, or for income tax forms.

I suspect this actually isn't true.  It's more that such objections are
not widely heard, because few people object enough to bother voicing
them, and those voicings, even when present, do not get wide
distribution.

> Bad things happen to you if you don't; it is necessary to keep
> society functioning.

Yes.  I also note that both of your examples are imposed from above (by
the motor-vehicle and income-tax branches of the government), not from
below.  I suspect the same is going to have to happen before we get a
reasonably good rate of correct contact addresses - especially for the
netblocks people need to reach the contacts for.

> Your assumption was completely correct at the dawn of the Internet
> when collegiality, small numbers, and motivation by peer approval
> reigned.  [...]  The Internet is now dominated by financial greed and
> so its participants, especially its miscreants, have to be dealt with
> in the way society handles this viz sanctions.

Personally, I'd prefer to see Atlas shrug, but I don't for a moment
think that will actually happen.  (In this case it would mean all the
hardcore geeks telling the ¤-is-king types "if you want a money-driven
network, _you_ maintain it".  Unfortunately hardcore geeks need to pay
bills too, and even with the dotcom world collapsing, the field still
pays relatively well.)

> These sanctions won't bite on the well-behaved,

But it costs to be well-behaved; even if you're not a spamhaus, it
costs time and effort to make sure your contact info is kept correct.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B